Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/Archive4

Mihailović’s role with respect to the Axis and Allies
I would suggest that we now do some work. This work I would call collaborative editing. Hopefully, though, it will result in consensus. I suggest that participants begin by working out a paragraph that sumarizes Mihailović’s role vis a vis the Axis and Allied powers. I further suggest that participants back their views with sources. Sunray (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 1
Hi. I haven't been looking at the mediation page for some time (and don't necessarily intend to spend much time here) but I have just begun rewriting the article completely (and plan to also rewrite Chetniks, and possibly Yugoslav Front, Yugoslavia and the Allies, and several related battles). I don't expect to be done completely with Mihailovic (not to mention the other articles) before several days, or possibly next week. I've started by the introduction, which was problematic to say the least (not that it's perfect now, but that's a start IMHO). Cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would really appreciate if Direktor wouldn't do this and let me finish working on this article. I am really trying to put it back into shape and I'd like my "sweat of the brow" to be respected. The mediation is supposed to include providing sources, and this is precisely what I'm doing. I'd like everyone to be civil and try to work honestly on this complicated issue instead of "rollbacking" what they don't like. The state of the article and the use of the sources can be discussed in the meantime or afterwards, but each participant's work must be respected IMHO. Thanks Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jean-Jacques, thank you for your proposed changes to the article . I guess I wasn't clear enough about the process for discussing changes to the article. I meant that we should discuss the changes here and work on consensus before making changes to the article. In my experience, that is the only way to bring order to the process. Often an article is protected during a mediation, however, I had thought that wouldn't be necessary because of the level of commitment you all have to solving the dispute. Nevertheless, I assume that you made the changes in good faith.

Would participants be able to look at the changes Jean-Jacques is proposing? Perhaps someone would be willing to lead the discussion. I would suggest that you proceed paragraph by paragraph. It also might make sense to discuss the lead last (since that is an overview of the whole article). However, it is best that participants decide how they want to proceed. I will be here to facilitate the process, as needed. Sunray (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If we look to the sources, the Jean-Jacques version is far more precise towards what the sources say. FkpCascais (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You could obviously revert direktors edits, too, because they were the ones that triggered this mediation in first place... This way, we have one sided version, as the current one. FkpCascais (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is usual practice to leave the article at the version in place when the mediation begins. Participants then reach consensus on changes. Are you indicating that you are in agreement with Jean-Jacques changes? Sunray (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is a valid version. FkpCascais (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @"You could obviously revert direktors edits, too, because they were the ones that triggered this mediation in first place."
 * (Personal attack removed) I think its important to establish that the conflict did not start with me pushing any disputed edits. Rather, I'm the guy who's disputing the edits of User:FkpCascais which were first introduced on 13 February 2010 (and were later expanded during the next few days).


 * As for the unilateral undiscussed "POV-ization" of the entire article on the part of User:Jean-Jacques Georges, I think it goes without saying that such massive edits should not be pushed during the mediation, even if they were not disputed - and they certainly are. His version is little short of a romaticized ballad to this person and virtually excludes any and all "negative" pieces of information about this person - whole paragraphs, sections, and sources were erased from the article. There's really no question on my part concerning the acceptability of Jean's version.


 * Sunray, there's only one major issue here: the inclusion of the word "collaboration" in the lead. I.e. whether this person collaborated with the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia during World War II. We are talking about the commander-in-chief of, in the words of German intelligence, "the most useful" collaborating force in Yugoslavia. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I will be frank: the matter is rather straightforward, FkpCascais merely needs someone "of authority" to tell him to adhere to presented sources and to cease removing them from the article. He claims everybody is "misrepresenting" the sources. Are we?


 * (edit conflict) I'm just getting started. :) (These are quotes from primary sources published in the listed secondary sources.) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a question: Are these the BEST sources you have to impose the "collaboration"? FkpCascais (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no "best sources" or "worse sources", they're all top quality, as it were, and simply state the obvious. If you're asking whether I'm done, I think I'll just sit back and be shocked for a while that you still ask something like that after months of reading (or should I say ignoring) sources that were thrown at you by the bushel-full.
 * Relax and let me at least finish my post before you start claiming this too "does not count" for some strange reason you think of. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should bring some better ones, because the ones talking about some possibilities in the future ("...could..."), or the ones that speak about some unknown "trustworthy source" are just far from accpted facts... Please, continue. FkpCascais (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (Personal attack removed) FkpCascais (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it useful to mention at this juncture that User:FkpCascais has not provided any sources whatsoever, during the course of this entire months-long discussion - i.e. there are no opposing sources as yet presented. Of course, the disqualification of the above quote is utterly baseless. ("Mihailović has ordered his commanders to co-operate with Germans." - past tense, Fkp; "The units that could really be used against the Partisans were Serbian and partly Russian volunteers" - this is also past tense. That's what I mean when I say "strange excuses"...) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We have enough sources. And you just seem to want to avoid the analisis to the ones you present, so we should, for some strange reason, asume that your interpretation of them is right... Is not right, and lets analise them. Btw, I think that those were your best sources (Personal attack removed)
 * ''Btw, as you said, it really needs some "authority", (Personal attack removed) Facts please. FkpCascais (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fkp, please leave me alone to post the sources? (Personal attack removed) . I'll be moving them to a seperate subsection to order them neatly. Please refrain from commenting on them there.


 * Sunray, please feel free to organize my posts and the page as you think is best, I'll just temporarily create a subsection to more neatly list the quotations. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I already said that you should list all your sources, several times. I even said now "please continue", or should I say, "be my guest". But, shouldn´t you provide the link for them, as well? FkpCascais (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the publications are not free, the citations are in-line per Wiki standards. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this all? You had some others, that were even better for making MY point, aren´t you gonna bring them, as well? FkpCascais (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "even better" sources you're talking about, as I kept telling you for months - they're all in the article anyway: you can read most of them. I'm focusing on the OKW reports right now, I'll be back with more from there. If necessary I'll even write down the relevant excerpts from the online books. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It´s OK to know that we are gonna analise the ones from the text, as well. You know, it is not fair that you repeat the expresion "for months", (Personal attack removed) . Anyway, have fun! FkpCascais (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also expect that we'll analyze any source brought up at a later time, as well. Finding a new reliable and verifiable source is always a good thing. -- Nuujinn (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Beginning work per Sunray's suggestion
I'll try to be brief. Sunray's suggestion is that we start with a summary of Mihailović’s role vis a vis the Axis and Allied powers. From what I've read so far, in both discussions and in the various sources, it seems that part of the problem we're having stems from the fact that his role changed throughout the war. What I would suggest is that we first work out a paragraph covering the first half of 1941 and hash that out, and then proceed in six month increments, so as to keep the discussion manageable. Below see a first draft, incorporating elements from both JJG's and DIR's versions of that time period (I hope you two do not mind my use of nicknames).

I want to be absolutely clear on one thing--I am not familiar with all of the sources used in this draft, so I am not making any claims for or against inclusion of any particular source at this time. In putting forth this draft at this moment, I am acting solely as a copy editor, hoping to provide a starting point for useful discussion. If in following the discussion, I come to find I disagree with the use, interpretation, weight, or any other aspect of a source, I'll voice that concern at that time.

I would also suggest that as a first step everyone please focus on what is wrong or incorrect with this draft, so that we first eliminate anything incorrect information, or any errors of omission I have committed in merging the two versions. We can certainly talk about additions later, but in general I find that editing out information to a lean outline first helps prepare a good solid frame for later additions. I have no doubt there are omissions at this point. I also recognize that the prose is very rough, but that should be the last step, I think, in the process. Also, do not fear for my safety, as I have a pillow on the floor behind me in case everyone agrees to this approach.


 * (Moved to below, so we can edit in place to conserve space) -- Nuujinn (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is useful. -- Nuujinn (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is indeed useful, IMO. I would like to complement the following participants for their recent work:
 * Jean-Jacques for taking some initiative in presenting a re-write of parts of the article
 * DIREKTOR for providing useful sources
 * Nuujinn for taking the lead in producing a draft on the collaboration theme.
 * A good day's work. I am hoping this continues and that other participants will join in to do some of the lifting in days to come. Sunray (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

May I add something ? If it is "usual practice to leave the article at the version in place when the mediation begins", then I'm against the idea of a mediation, which would be a complete waste of time. I only accepted the idea of mediation as a little favor to FkpCascais and was never really interested in it in the first place. No offense meant to anyone, but I am completely opposed to leaving the utterly biased and incomplete version in place. Since we are all civilized people, I think we can all discuss on the article's talk page while working and not waste our time on a formal "mediation" when the talk page can do the same thing. If this "mediation" means hampering a rewrite, then I'd prefer it to be abandoned. Sorry if this may seem offensive to Sunray, which is certainly not my intention, but I think this article needs a major rewrite as soon as possible, and it would be a waste of time if it couldn't be done while we discuss here. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jean-Jacques Georges, I would suggest that the ultimate purpose of mediation is to do a complete rewrite of the article, and we'd all be well served if you participated in that process. I admire your diligence, and I think in your recent revisions there is much useful text. But the reason we got here in the first place is because we were unable to come to consensus using the regular edit and discussion process. I ask that you please give the mediation process a chance. If nothing else, please review my draft above for errors, I've incorporated some of your text above and I'd like to make sure I've gotten it right. -- Nuujinn (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the mediation process is going to make me waste time which could be used working on the article, I'm not interested in it at all. I think the discussion can take place on the article's talk page anyway, if we all agree to work like civilized people. Please take note that I plan to rewrite (or, if I may be more modest, to improve) Chetniks, Yugoslav Front, Yugoslavia and the Allies, etc. But I'd like Direktor to be civil, assume good faith and not to start edit warring. Beware of WP:OWN.
 * Anyway, I'll take a look at your draft so we can do some cooperative work. But I've far from finished working on the Mihailovic article, so it might be more useful for me to finish it first so you can incorporate my edits later into yet another draft. If you agree on that, I promise to work on it as fast as I can. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it should be, as mediator, Sunray's call. But no, if it were up to me I would not agree to that at this point, since we have failed as a group for months now to work as civilized people. That being said, I would certainly endorse you creating an entire article draft and putting that up here as a separate section, and I would certainly pull copy edit material from that draft in draft we're working here. -- Nuujinn (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've said on the article talk page, in many mediations, articles are protected to prevent edit waring by participants or major edits of the text during a mediation. I had hoped that wouldn't be necessary in this case, but unless editors cease making changes to the article I can see no other way. Sunray (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If Jean-Jacques Georges feels time limitations, would it be ok for them to write their complete draft and leave it here as a separate section for us to consult, so as to be able to take into account Jean-Jacques Georges's perspective? -- Nuujinn (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be fine. JJ could put up a sandboxed version with his changes if he likes.
 * JJ: Would you be able to let me know if you want me to set up a subpage of this page or do it on your own subpage? Sunray (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Making a draft on my own subpage would be a good compromise. This way I'd be able to work properly without interferences. I'll try to work on it this week-end or on monday. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. And if you have a link to that from this page, others will be able to participate and comment. I think it is important to bear in mind that the goal of this mediation is for participants to reach consensus on the issues. Meanwhile I will rollback the article to the last stable version before the mediation began. Thanks for your cooperation. Sunray (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I may add that Direktor's attitude has not put me in good spirits. No one likes to be called a liar, I guess. Apologies would be very welcome, so I assume that he did not mean to actually offend me. However, I have not interest in conflicts with anyone.
 * Anyway, I realize that making a whole draft and submitting it completely is the best way to work on this subject (as well as on "Chetniks", "Yugoslav front", et. al.). If I submit an entire article instead of correcting the current versions little bit by little bit, my edits will make far more sense and I will not risk to be accused of any offenses against neutrality.
 * I won't have the time to work on it this week-end but I hope to get back to it monday and/or tuesday and, hopefully, to finish by the end of next week a complete draft with a beginning, a middle, and an end.
 * But in the meantime, it is absolutely necessary to put some sort of "neutrality dispute" template on the pathetically biased article. It is the only sensible thing to do, since the disputed version is a real shame to wikipedia. Cheers.
 * EDIT : just saw the "mediation" template. That may be enough since it already suggests that the article has issues. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the draft at User:Jean-Jacques Georges/drafts/Mihailovic. I'll try to get back to work on it by tomorrow and - hopefully, god willing and time permitting - finish by the end of the week something vaguely resembling an acceptable article. , Please take note that I'd prefer not having people touch the draft itself, not because I'm an egomaniac, but simply because it would confuse me. However, any comments, suggestions and factual corrections will be welcome on the draft's talk page. Since English is not my first language, grammar and syntax corrections are also very welcome. Thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Draft 01-06 1941
I moved this to it's own section so we could edit it in place, please discuss changes in the other sections. Also, I put in a references tag to ease checking sources. -- Nuujinn (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a bad start. It should also mention the fact that Mihailovic's idea was also to wait for and Allied landing, and organize in the meantime a guerilla organization that would join the fight against the Axis upon said landing. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * After the Yugoslav defeat by Germany in April of 1941, a small group of officers and soldiers led by Mihailović escaped in hope of joining Yugoslav army units fighting in the mountains. Mihailović called this small group the "Command of Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army" . After arriving at Ravna Gora, Serbia on May 8, 1941, he discovered his group of seven officers and twenty four non-commissioned officers and soldiers were the sole remnants of Yugoslav army in the area. Mihailović planned to establish an underground intelligence movement and contact the Allies., and gathered men and weapons in anticipation of supporting Allied efforts once they arrived in the Balkans. Ill equipped, his men did not have the resources to protect Serbian civilians against German reprisals (such as more than 3,000 killed in Kraljevo and Kragujevac), and Mihailović generally discouraged open conflict against Axis forces, favoring actions such as sabotage that could not easily be traced.


 * In June 1941, Josip Broz Tito's Partisans began active resistance against the Germans. Tito favored full resistance, striking at the Germans and Italians with full force, in contrast to Mihailović's strategy designed to "save his country with as few casualties as possible". Lieutenant Colonel Živan L. Knežević, one of Mihailović's senior advisers and chief of the military cabinet of the royalist government stated: "[Mihailović] thought that the [partisan] uprising was premature and that, without any gain in prospect, it would have brought disproportionately great sacrifices. He was not able to convince the Partisans that an open fight could have only one result, namely, the annihilation of the population."

Comments on Draft 01-06 1941

 * If you want to go into such detail (unnecessary in this article I think) you will need to give full coverage to the meeting at Divci, in the tavern opposite the railway station, 11 November 1941, at which Mihailović offered full collaboration to the Germans in return for extensive supplies of arms and munitions with which to fight the Partisans. The Germans rejected Mihailović's proposals, as they felt he was untrustworthy. Over to you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that such detail is unnecessary, and I work to pare it down as we go. That is one reason why I am asking first if anyone sees anything in the draft that is incorrect, can you see anything that is poorly sourced or factually incorrect in the current draft? -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Alasdair, the Partizan offered the exact same thing, to side with the germans against the chetniks. You forgot that I suppose? (LAz17 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * LAz17, glad to see that you're participating. I would suggest that while it may be true that the partisans (I honestly don't know one way or the other), that really doesn't have bearing here, at least so far. Do either you or AlasdairGreen see anything poorly sourced or factually incorrect in the current draft? -- Nuujinn (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Revised Draft--I just trimmed the text, collapsed paragraphs 1 and 2, trimmed the quotes, and tried to address Jean-Jacques Georges's suggestion. I _think_ I've retained the more meaningful elements, and cleaned the prose a bit, but if anyone thinks it is not better, please feel free to revert, or better, edit it. -- Nuujinn (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Better. FkpCascais (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello folks. I am not involved, but would like to offer some material... (LAz17 (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * Thanks for the reference! -- Nuujinn (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Draft 07-12 1941
Here's rough draft based on the article as it stands with material from JJG's version, and major copy edits. Please make comments below in the comments section--I'm trying to keep the various bits in a format that can be easily incorporated later. This draft is pretty rough, feel free to clean it up. I think it's also too long, so I'll come back to it and trim it down in a few days if no one beats me to it.


 * By July, Axis occupation forces were met by armed resistance supported by the Partisans, and during the summer months Partisan and Chetnik forces often cooperated in operations. As a result of the increase resistance, the Germans diverted troops in preparation for their first major offensive against the Partisans which began on September 29th. In an attempt to coordinate efforts between the Partisans and Chetniks, Tito and Mihailović met twice, on September 9th and October 25th, but they found consensus only on secondary issues: They represented groups in diametric opposition to one another and between which conflict was inevitable. Each wanted the other to subordinate their forces under a common command, but neither was willing to give up leadership of the whole. Further straining the relationship was the British recognition of Mihailović as the official leader of the resistance in Yugoslavia that fall, which meant that the Partisans would receive no aid from the British.


 * The day after their failed meeting in October, two of Mihailović's aides, Colonel Pantic and Captain Mitrovic, contacted a german intelligence officer claiming that Mihailović would put his forces at the disposal of the Germans for the purpose of eliminating the communist resistance in exchange for arms. The Germans requested a meeting with Mihailović. A few days later, on November 1, the Chetniks attacked the Partisans' headquarters at Užice, but were repelled by the Partisans. On November 11, a meeting took place between Mihailović and an Abwehr official, Lt. Colonel Kogard, at which Mihailović offered to cease activities against the Germans in exchange for supplies they could use to fight the partisans. The Germans did not accept his offer, and instead demanded surrender of the Chetniks. After the failed negotiations, an attempt was made by the Germans to arrest Mihailović. Mihailović's negotiations with the Germans were carefully kept secret from the Yugoslav government-in-exile, as well as from the British and their representative Captain T.J. Hudson.


 * Meanwhile, the Partisans mounted a successful counterattack against the Chetniks, and by mid November they had surrounded the Chetnik headquarters in Ravna Gora, but ceased operations for fear of disrupting British and Soviet relations. Also, The British put pressure on the Chetniks to consolidate efforts with the Partisan against the approaching German, but meetings between the two groups failed as before to reach any substantial agreement. On November 25, the final phase of the German offensive against Chetniks and Partisans began. Tito and Mihailović had one last phone conversation: Tito announced that he would defend his positions, while Mihailović said that he would disperse. The remnants of his Chetniks retreated to the hills of Ravna Gora, and Mihailović barely escaped capture when German forces overran his headquarters in early December. On December 10, a bounty was put on his head.

Comments on Draft 07-12 1941

 * I've trimmed the draft a bit, and consolidated 2 paragraphs. Please check the work to make sure there's nothing factually incorrect or if any of the text causes you concern. -- Nuujinn (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Notes and References for Drafts
Please keep this section clear of comments, it's just a holding point for the notes and references for the various drafts to ease edits and verification of references. -- Nuujinn (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Notes References

Tomasevich a reliable source?
I just have to make this question. FkpCascais (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think he is not, please post your concerns. -- Nuujinn (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There has been a fair amount of discussion of this on the article talk page. The gist of it seems to be that he is a respected academic who has written a definitive work about Yugoslavia during WWII. I'm not aware of anyone challenging his objectivity on the grounds that he was of Croatian origin.


 * I note that the citations given in the article do not have page numbers. We will need the page numbers of pages that are being relied on. Also, does this source say "Mihailović was a collaborator" (i.e., actually call him a collaborator)? Sunray (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the page numbers, I'm using a combination of citations and wikilinks, see Citing_sources/Further_considerations for a reference. This method means using a Notes section to link the text to a short reference, including the page number, and a References section with the bibliographical data. It is non-intuative in that the Notes section has the reflist, and the References section has a set of cite templates, but it has the advantage that you can put the page numbers in the reference tags in the article body and name the reference, so you don't have to list the book multiple times. Let me know how unclear that all is, but if you look at the Notes and references above, you see the page numbers in the notes subsection, which link to the books listed in the references section.


 * Regard Tomasevich and his use of the term collaborator in direct connection with Mihailovic, I have a limited view access via Google books, but see pages 219, 317 (the strongest statement in this work I've found characterizing Mihailović directly as a collaborator: "...the Germans were suspicious of Mihailović and his Chetniks despite their occasional local collaboration") and pages 336-337. Pages 321-322 have a good discussion of the complex relationship as well. I can provide quotes if you or anyone else cannot get to them, and I'm pretty sure our library has the book in print. -- Nuujinn (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

From the links used in the lede, the Tomasevic ones are the ones that are far from the tone of the others, clearly being more acusational. I read the book, and the general feeling is that he does condemn the Chetniks and Mihailovic, as it would be expected, for a historian, working inside Tito Yugoslavia, in that period. FkpCascais (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The way forward
Listen, honestly, I´m not sure I have the desire to participate any more. There is nice weather where I live, I have my work, I´m also furthering my knolledge in other areas, so I don´t understand the point of making myself a fool around here. I am completely missunderstood here: I don´t defend Mihailovic, I am not his fan, neither a Chetnik one, (Personal remarks removed) Having in mind that Mihailovic doesn´t really have nobody defending him (no real fan), and at least 3 feroutious oponents, together with a mediator that didn´t made even ONE decition in his favour (but all against), how is possible to expect a "fair trial" anyway? As a born Serb, I do have a desire to have the related history written in a unbiased way, and much of this articles are completely biased, that is clear to the birds singing on the three of my garden. But, if you all want to have them that way, that is up to you, or even better, let LAz17 re-write them all! Perhaps is my openess that were perjuditial to my relationship with all you, maybe my person was condemned by all you, since the moment I decided to opose to this biased version? Maybe my contributions are perjuditial to the ones I alledgedly defend? Please go on, I´ll need some time to think on this... FkpCascais (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Talk:Draža Mihailović/Britannica and Talk:Draža Mihailović/Mediation Request Here I explained all. FkpCascais (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means take a break. When you have rested and, perhaps, gained some new perspective, you will be welcome back. Your perspective is valuable. Do please keep in mind though that there is no need to make personal remarks. Not ever. It undermines the possibility of working together. Sunray (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As I said in the section above, I've moved the draft and will work on it the best I can this week, and possibly next week if I'm not finished. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you don't just work on it here. Would you be willing to do that? Sunray (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll "work on it here" in the sense that I appreciate comments and suggestions. But since the draft is bound to be somewhat complex and take several days at best, I'd like to be the only person writing it, otherwise it will just be confusing to me. You are free to copy it here while it's in progress, though. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one would certainly appreciate the eyes of editors with more knowledge of the topic than I have, and obviously working together on the article will make consensus easier to achieve. -- Nuujinn (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Jean-Jacques Georges, please post a link when you get your draft started and I'll take a look. The thing is, we have a version up in mainspace that I think it is safe to say DIREKTOR supports, but with which you have some significant issues. You're going to work on a draft that will be your version. I've tried to bring material from your work in progress made recently, and from the current version in mainspace into the version started above, but there has been negliable feedback from other editors on what I've done thus far. So I guess I'll just pose the question, what does everyone involved in this process want to do at this point? I'm willing to continue on the path I'm on if it will help, but there are plenty of fish to fry out there, and if no one is going to participate in the mediation process, I'm not sure there's any point. But I also feel very strongly that the only to move forward constructively is to work together on the article. -- Nuujinn (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree any agreement on article text will have to be worked out on this page. Would other participants be able to comment on the current draft? Sunray (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello all, sorry for the late reply. I would be happy to comment on the current draft. Isidoradaven (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC).